You do own your computer, but zero tolerance is stupid. You have a choice to click or not. Content providers have a right to display on your computer when YOU request their site. If it's a malware site, it gets blacklisted by multiple entities and browsers. Since you're on slashdot, zero tolerance by an anonymous coward means you're getting fed ads. If you're not getting ads, you installed some software to prevent that, and that activity means you tolerated it more than zero. If you truly believe in zero tolerance, gtfo slashdot and nearly every other popular website out there including google search, youtube, yahoo, etc.
You have that choice of what to browse, and content providers have a choice of how to market. Forcing ads onto people unwilling to view ads is a very low percentage market, therefore there is no reason to pretend there's some sort of arms race. There isn't.
The overall point is that spending money to market to people who not only don't want your ads, but will actively blacklist your entire website if it's too obnoxious (*cough*upworthy*cough*) means marketing money poorly spent. If adblock software is intentionally rendered ineffective, those websites will get far fewer visitors. They will lose money.